1) If a mortal becomes a (non-native) outsider, for example via the means to turn into a demon... what will happen to his soul? Unless I am mistaken, Outsiders don't have one, while the mortal does (or at least, did)...

2) Regarding redeemable outsiders:

Spoiler:

Arueshalae lost her [evil] subtype upon ceasing to be evil, and gains the [good] subtype upon completing her alignment shift. Is this a special effect for this very succubus, or is this a rule for beings with an alignment subtype in general?

3) While we're there...

Spoiler:

Since a romance between Arueshalae and a character is very possible... what kind of child could result from this kid of union? A Half-Celestial? A Half-Succubus, with modified traits? Something else altogether?

4) A minor thing i noted about Orcs and Alignment...
Orcs pretty much default to to CE.
Which, of course, is an alignment the occasional orc druid cannot have.
Now, pretty much all orc druids I've seen in printed adventures, be it Paizo or third party, were NE, rather than CN.
Do you think that Orcs gravitate to 'evil' more strongly than towards 'chaotic'... or am I over-interpreting things, the 'NE' entry being primary due to the 'antagonists tend to be evil' trope?

I said it and I'll say it again, I have zero problems with the Sorcerer lagging a level behind the Wizard in spells.

What I do have a gripe with is the fact that, whenever the Sorcerer gets a new spell level, he will have one single spell to fill his new slots.

One. Single. Spell.

All the 6-level spontaneous progressions get two new spells known when them reach a new spell level. The Oracle gets three (one to choose, one from the Cure/Inflict series, and one from her mystery).

The Sorcerer, however, gets one spell now; his Bloodline spell coming up a level after.

Which not only leaves him with a single spell of his new level, but also leads to the effect that his Bloodline (which, according to fluff, is the very reason that he is wielding magic in the first place) comes in later.

I'd do nothing to 'fix' the spell level lag.

I would, however, grant Sorcerers their Bloodline spell of a certain spell level the very instant their spellcasting progression reaches said spell level, to reflect the importance of the Bloodline.

Yeah. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of GMs houserule (possibly unknowingly, in a de facto sort of way) that native outsiders count as humanoids rather than outsiders for things like disguise self, enlarge person, etc., unless you really would rather your undine disguise himself as a balor rather than an elf.

Change the native outsiders in question to Humanoid (Planetouched)... and you rid yourself of a LOT of problems.

Just sayin'...

GM says: *rolls die* "The monster attacks you for... what was your AC again?"
GM means: "Well, you're gonna get hit anyway, I just need a target number to make up."

8. If he voluntarily jumps off a cliff
9. If he is successfully pushed over the edge of said cliff
10. If he fails his save vs. a Grease spell in an appropriate situation
11. If he is successfully tripped

Honestly, I think this whole debate comes from New School players unable to play through an Old School scenario. People who are whining about a Goddess not treating them the way they think they should be treated are just the entitled types of adventurers she would not rely on and would pass for better bringers of her will and might.

^This^

Seems that some players will start to whine the very second they are confronted with the existence of someone who is higher up on the food chain than their precious precious characters.

Whenever you use Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, or Greater Vital Strike, multiply the Strength bonus, magic bonus, and other bonuses that would normally be multiplied on a critical hit by the number of weapon damage dice you roll for that feat.

should be worded as

Quote:

Mythic Vital Strike:

Whenever you use Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, or Greater Vital Strike, multiply the Strength bonus, magic bonus, and other bonuses that would normally be multiplied on a critical hit by the number of times you roll your weapon damage dice for that feat.

to have the static bonuses be affected by the multipliers Vital Strike and its cousins provide.

As written, the static bonus for a large creature that employs Mythic Vital Strike just goes into overkill (Wildshaped Mythic Druid with Strong Jaw, anyone?)

A proposal I made in the Beta testing, was that the bloodline spell of each spell level should be gained earlier. Therefore, the level 2 spell would be gained at caster level 4, when their other second-level spells were learned.

Seconded, thirded and fourthed.

I can live with the Sorcerer getting his spells a level late. However, the variety of spells when reaching a new level leaves much to be desired.

Every single six-level progression class gets two new spells known when they reach a new spell level.

The Oracle gets access to three new spells known (one from her spell progression, one from her mystery, plus a cure or Inflict spell).

The Sorcerer is the only class that gets one.

Granting these Bloodline spells a level early (or two levels early, in case of the first level spell), at the very moment the Sorcerer comes into the power level to actually cast them would both be thematically appropriate (these spells are a cornerstone of his arcane definition, after all) and remove the 'single spell to spam' effect the Sorcerer is suffering from at the time.

I thought bastard swords were pretty simple. What's the confusion? It's a two-handed weapon that you can wield in one hand if you have the feat. What am I missing?

In a nutshell, Malachi claims that a bastard sword of any size, not just your own, is considered a martial weapon when wielded two-handed.

Others (including myself) are of the opinion that the "One Handed = Exotic / Two Handed = Martial" equation is valid for Bastard Swords designed for your own size, and is subject to the same scaling rules as the usual handedness of weapons.

Oh, and the Bastard Sword is not a 'two-handed weapon that you can wield in one hand with EWP'. For all design purposes regarding cost, hardness, and the like it is a one handed weapon.

As presented on page 549 of the Core Rulebook, there are no limitations other than (1) you have to have the item creation feat, and (2) you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites. So racial requirements, specific spell requirements, math requirements (such as "caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus"), and so on, are all subject to the +5 DC rule.

I have been burned by at least one too many snowflake who sabotaged the party, the story or both claiming to 'just being playing my character' that I have come to the point of simply refusing to GM a group containing concepts that will not work together.

Likewise, if I offer to GM a certain setting (let's just take the courtiers-in-Kyonin as an example), I will treat a player's idea of "Oh, I will be playing an Ugh-me-tough half-orc neanderthal barbarian, then" as just another way of saying "Not interested in your crap."

Yes, I do have a plot in mind when I offer to GM something. Just tossing your characters out into a world-sized sandbox with the PCs as the only driving force is not what I offer; if you require that kind of play, please find yourself another GM.

I can, and I will help players integrate the occasional oddball into the scenario, as long as things do not get odd enough to break my own suspension of disbelief.

However, I require the player in question to play with me in these cases. Give me a reason why this character is on this setting. Give me a reason why this character would want to travel with the group, and why the group would want to have him. If you bring a snow elf winter witch (from a violently xenophobic tribe, to boot) into a desert campaign, simply stating "Well, she's diffetent" when asked about your reason to be there is not gonna cut it.

I play this game because I want to have fun. As soon as you force me to do things that are un-fun for me, two things happen:
1) The very reason I GM has just disappeared. If I continue, out of shatever sende of duty...
2) My GM'ing suffers. This will lead to less fun on your side.

TL;DR: I offer a certain campaign, in a certain setting, within certain parameters.
If you want to play under these circumstances, fine.
If you'd like to stretch some of these parameters, we can talk, within limits.
If you don't find my offer acceptable, don't play. No one is holding a gun to your head.
Should I find enough players this way, great. If I don't... well, I'll be doing something else, then.

So all 4 players agreed to the campaign and yet all 4 showed up with concepts that didn't fit?

Seems to me they only "agreed" to humor the GM, probably because he wouldn't shut up about how cool his new campaign was and shot down any other ideas.

Seems to me that if you have 4 players who are "snowflakes" (which isn't even a fitting term here because that implies they're unique in their oddity) the campaign needs to change, not them. He's outnumbered 4 to 1 on this.

Frankly, if I were in the the GM's shoes in that situation, I'd advise the players to change the GM, as well.

Supply and demand. I offer a campaign, which may or may not place certain limits on what may be a viable concept.
You choose whether you want to play or not.
If this leaves me with too few players, well, seems that the group didn't want to play what I offer. Which means, no deal.

I don't know. The way I run it demons are pure evil and chaos given physical form. It's not just a person that's been lead astray and needs to be shown the error of his ways. Outsiders are the embodiment of concepts and not whole beings like mortals. That's what makes mortals so special. To even begin to change a demon's fundamental nature would require something of cosmic significance imo. They wouldn't so easy question their ways just because you shows weakness (mercy).

Umm... Arikiel... you are aware that this very AP sports a redeemed demon in a prominent role, aren't you?

Summons aren't NPCs, and you can't summon NPCs. So what's the point of the argument again?

Frankly, unless you're prepared to be told "I don't have authoritative info on that type of daemon / qlippoth / herald of Groetus you're trying to call via planar binding or planar ally", I'd recommend you bring the stats for any creatures you call as well.

Same goes for your character polymorphing himself, an NPC, or another PC.

You add a resource to the game, or change an existing one, you are the one who is forced to be able to state its abilities, from a legal source.

Conclusion: Spell like abilities obviously grant a caster level of some kind. If it works for (general) item creation, it works for PrCs as well.

Granting a caster Level says exactly ZERO about counting as the ability to cast spells of a certain spell level. Last time I checked, the PrC entry prerequisite was 'able to cast ($flavor) spells of Level X', rather than 'caster level Y'.

I am aware that SLAs count as being of a certain spell level regarding concentration checks or penetrating various defenses... yet still, they are something different from actual spells of the associated level. Unless my memory fails me, it is repeatedly writen that 'SLAs are not spells'.

If you come across a PrC, or Feat that requires 'able to cast Daylight', go ahead with your Aasimar. You are fulfilling that prerequisite. Likewise, your friendly neighborhood Succubus will easily qualify for any Feat of PrC that requires 'Caster Level X' (if X < 13).

However, if the requirement is 'able to cast arcane (or divine) spells, your SLAs just won't do the trick.

Possibly from the linked info; http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow

Quote:

Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?

Yes.
For example, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 06/06/13 Back to Top

I am aware of that one (I think I actually stated that very example).

However, while being able to cast Dimension Door (whether as a spell, a SLA) obviously qualifies as being able to cast Dimension Door (duh!), the connection to 'thus is able to cast 4th level arcane spells' (or even 'cast arcane spells' at all) is the very link I am missing.

The fact that a Dimension Door SLA counts as being arcane does not make it an arcane spell.

The fact that I can create magical items that require Dimension Door, supplying my SLA in lieu of the spell does not make my SLA an actual arcane spell

So; a Feat, a PRC, or whatever that needed the ability to cast Dimension Door would easily accessible by having the SLA.
A Feat or PRC requiring being able to cast arcane spells would not.

Where exactly did you come to the conclusion that an SLA meets the prerequisite 'must be able to cast X - level arcane spells' for a prestige class?

I see a 'yes' to item creation, I see a comment that most SLAs count as arcane (nota bene: not as arcane spells), and I seem to remember that having a particular SLA (e.g. Dimension Door) qualifies for the prerequisite 'Capable of casting Dimension Door.

However; that's about it. So, I am unable to follow the leap of logic along the lines of 'SLAs are arcane, so they must be arcane spells, so they are a qualifying ticket into PrCs'.

I'm sorry to say, but this whole attempt to loophole a shortcut into EK, MT or whatever PrC still appears illegal to me, on top of actually pinning the cheese-o-meter.

Question: For all it's worth, why did no one of you plainly ask the question 'Can I meet a PrC's requirement of can cast arcane spells of Level X or higher' by possessing a SLA of appropriate level?'

Since it doesn't specify swapping a Bonus Fighter Feat or a Bonus Combat Feat, it seems logical that, in the absence of a specific restriction as exists in other classes (ie. Magus, Summoner) and by the precedent of multi-class meshing being permissible (ie. Orc bloodline benefiting non-sorc spells), it stands to reason that, so long as you earned the feat by a Bonus Feats class ability, you can trade it out.

Well, let's see what happens if I apply your logic on something else in the Core Rulebook (something that was brought up by Ravingdork, IIRC)

Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered sorcerer level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the sorcerer loses the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell's level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged. A sorcerer may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that she gains new spells known for the level.

Note that nothing in the second paragraph indicates that I have to swap out my old spell for a spell from the Sorcerer list. Heck, even the initial paragraph only claims that I draw my spells primarily from the Sor/Wiz list, thus making it obviously clear, that by logic, I am fully within my rights to swap out an old spell for any kind of spell, doesn't it?

Also to note, before reading this thread, I had no idea that Tieflings couldn't be the target of X Person spells. It really is so far beyond logic that I never would have guessed, and must have glossed over reading those parts of the ARG or something.

You won't find it spelled out in the ARG. The whole 'immune to Person spells' thing is simple and logical application of the rules of 'xxx Person works only on Humanoid type targets'.

Actually, this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Sprinkle holy water on an evil human sorcerer, he'll get wet. Sprinkle the same holy water on an evil Oread sorcerer, ooh, look at the effect of holy water having on evil outsiders.

Because 'Humor doesn't translate well', any Aasimar is less likely to be affected by a Hideous Laughter spell cast by a human. Your friendly Succubus Bard, on the other hand, is quite adept at finding the perfect punchline for her fellow outsider.

A Tiefling cannot ever use a Hat of Disguise to appear human (as you cannot appear as another creature type). Disguising himself as a fire elemental, though, is no problem at all.

While Shadows and normal Vampires still can easily kill your average Tiefling, they cannot change him into one of their own (the Shadow's spawn ability working only on humanoids, the vampire's only on creatures of their own type)

Should I continue?

Yes, some of these effects are counter-intuitive. Some are illogical. Yet, it is the developer's explicit intent that the planetouched races are Native Outsiders, period. So, I wouldn't count on that changing anytime soon.

Frankly, my group has found the whole shebang to be more hassle than it's worth, and we have shifted the 0HD Native Outsider races to Humanoids with the (planetouched) subtype, and I recommend this house rule to whatever group I am playing with... but this is, and will remain, a house rule.

Frankly, I think instating the policy of 'No rules questions, folks' as a response to that ominous 'get your house in order' thread was... kind of an overreaction.

There are many forumites (myself included) who liked to get an opinion on how the creative director was seeing the rules without intending to use the 'JJ said this, so your differing opinion must be ZOMGBADWRONG!!1!11' hammer.

Might I kindly ask you to return to giving out your personal opinion about how you think some things should be resolved?

I just checked in for voting, and feel the urgent need for adding a possibility to declare 'None of these items should advance'.

Out of the first 10 items I saw, precisely zero adhered to the template. I am not talking a wrongly placed semicolon, but all caps instead of bold text, the ubiquious 'wonderous item' and the like.
Most of the entried have other flaws that make them appear unsuitable to me, including but not limited to, pricing higher than half a million, a hefty increase in bookkeeping, DC values above anything even remotely in line with price and caster level, a set of abilities that is almost a carbon copy of an existing item in a Paizo publication (in a massively different flavor, though), and the like.

Is it just me? Am I too harsh, or elitist? Did I get off with a bad start?
Or is the average quality of the entries actually that low?

I must admit, the so-called 'Most important rule: Did you warn him?' is the one I disagree with.

Granted; in most cases, the Paladin (or rather, his player) should be be given the chance to see he is straying from the path; however, there are exceptions.

A Paladin that takes offense on the (admittedly outrageous) prices a shopkeeper asks, leaves the shop and tries to set fire to the building the following night will fall without warning in my game.

A Paladin who follows a code that states 'My word is my honor' who formally enters parley with an enemy emissary, only to strike him down (with a resounding 'SMITE EVIL') once negotiations have begun with no treachery on the enemy's part will fall. No, I will not accept excuses along the lines of 'Hey, he was evil, so I was doing a good thing.'

A Paladin who gains an audience with the Crown Princess, and runs her through before she can finish the sentence of 'Welcome, hero of *urgh*' because, well, the player felt that 'this b#?ch was going to betray us anyway' will fall so hard he reaches terminal velocity before impacting on the floor.

As for the 'no win situation': I agree that it is bad form for a GM to make a habit out of crafting a situation that only have 'You fall' solutions for a Paladin. Truth be told, I don't design my adventures that way.

However, even if I don't design the adventure in such ways, some antagonist NPC's who have a personal gripe with the PCs will attempt to strike them where it hurts. Their reputations. Their loved ones. Their possessions. Their faith.

And if a scheming devil, or an experienced succubus sees a possibility to maneuver the Pally into a situation where he seems to have the choice between falling and failing... trust me, it will do its very best.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Actually, my question is the other way round:
Why keep the designation 'Monster Feat' at all?
Anyone who meets the prerequisities can take them anyway, and most of them have prerequisites that can be fulfilled by a PC without any problem, so why bother keeping yet another category?

Some people think the game is finding ways to manipulate the ruleset to maximize power.

Some people put the verisimilitude of the setting as the highest priority.

Neither is "wrong", but often they are incompatible at the same table.

I am aware of this effect.

Being a GM for a group of friends I play with, I have the luxury of my use of Rule Zero not being an issue. I have the trust of my players that I won't attempt to trick them with something they'd perceive as a cheesy rule hole exploit, and I can rely on them not trying to do a letter-of-the-RAW-approach, either.

In fact, if one of my players tried to do something the rest of the group perceived as a munchkin idea, the group as a whole would probably try to shoot that thing down before I have to interfere.

In my opinion (and I know that I risk being yelled at for this), problems start when things start to get competitive rather than cooperative. If you cultivate a GM-vs-player approach, if you start to consider the game as a competition you have to win, it is only logical to use the allowed possibilities to the maximum legal extent (and maybe some more, if you don't get caught).

Unfortunately, the people who propose that rule zero should be burned and its ashes scattered, that players have a RAW-given right to do whatever is not explicitly forbidden by the rules, period... these people appear to be a pretty vocal fraction on these boards.

Organized play complicates things as well: When I wrote about the 'holy cow of zero table variance', I meant exactly that. Zero variance means that you cannot have 'gentlemen agreements' between players and GM, since these will differ from table to table.

Unless my memory fails me, James not only states that he loves additional options, more stories, more world... he also states that he would love to give some more control back to the GM.

Which pretty much flies in the face of both 'zero table variance' and 'RAW is LAW'.

I simply pointed out that by RAW, the bastard sword's description points out that you can use it two handed with martial weapon proficiency and by literal reading of the RAW it means you can wield any size of bastard sword.

Negative on that, Houston.

By Malachi's reading of the rules, you would be proficient in the two handed use of the bastard sword of any size.

Hey, I got a holy weapon... shouldn't I get the added bonus by treating my opponent as if it were an evil outsider?
Oh, look, I got Pally levels, as well... sure I can smite that enemy I treat as an 'Evil Outsider', can't I?
Hey, I got a disrupting weapon... shouldn't I get the chance of insta-disrupting my enemy, whom I treat as Undead?
And if I treat that Dragon, or ooze, as being a human via Instant enemy, I sure as hell should be able to target it with my scroll of Hold Person, right?

May I call to your attention that the developers themselves stated that, at times, common sense should be applied instead of reading just the letter of the RAW?